Ehhh I don't care how long a movie is, as long as it entertains me. The Dark Knight Rises was 165 minutes, but I was entertained throughout. On the other hand, Pearl Harbor was 183 minutes, and it felt like it took 3 days to get through.

In theory, Friedberg & Seltzer's Disaster Movie is the ideal film for somebody with ADHD:

- It's barely 70 minutes long.- No references to anything over a few years old.- And even then, the references are spelled out for the audience. ("Hey, look. That person is supposed to be Justin Timberlake!"- Zero plot to speak of, so no need to worry about remembering any story details or subtle character nuances.- Any given scene has nothing to do with anything that came before, or anything that will follow.

Can't agree there. The bulk of the movies that get released today that are 90 to 100 minutes feel rushed, cheap, or cut to death by a movie company. Too often they feel like novelty experiences. Most of my favorites are in the 2 to 2 1/2 hour range, often up to 3 hours.

Not to say there aren't good movies on the low end of the time scale. They just are few and far between, IMO.

Can't agree there. The bulk of the movies that get released today that are 90 to 100 minutes feel rushed, cheap, or cut to death by a movie company. Too often they feel like novelty experiences. Most of my favorites are in the 2 to 2 1/2 hour range, often up to 3 hours.

Not to say there aren't good movies on the low end of the time scale. They just are few and far between, IMO.

It entirely depends on the film. Most comedies couldn't fill 120 minutes, and many seem to drag even at 90 minutes. Some dramas need the extra time. Some definitely don't.